Does anyone care about the economy?

Engage in discussions about news, politics, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
surfndestroy
Future Drummer
Posts: 2870
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 2:21 am

Re: Does anyone care about the economy?

Post by surfndestroy »

broken iris wrote:
shinkdew wrote:

The Millennial job interview prospect

Something we are trying to avoid now because they jump ship as soon as someone offers them a few grand more. Honestly, anyone who is younger than 26 and older than 50 is basically fucked in this economy unless you have an established network.
I fully agree with this quote from the linked article.

"I think what happens is when there's more and better measurement, it's like credit scores. Once you get a bad credit score, yes, it is possible to fix it, but as you probably know, it's pretty difficult. So I think it will reward people who are disciplined early in their lives, and that will help a lot of people, but it also will harm some others."

I think if you're young and have your shit together that things are going to be pretty easy for you. But for a person struggling to find their way, well good luck. I know where I work that young and talented get treated very well. Regularly reviewed career paths that are a collaborative effort are a big part of that. The flipside of this is that I think that kids coming from a household without strong parental guidance and support will be pretty fucked over. I can definitely see the inequality gap widening and the education gap widening as well.
Think I’m going to try being kind to everyone a chance.
User avatar
malice
post-structuralist
Posts: 4377
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:22 pm
Location: faked by jorge

Re: Does anyone care about the economy?

Post by malice »

broken iris wrote:
simple schoolboy wrote:don't think this is exactly breaking news, but maybe underemployed young people can claim the title of bohemian. Guess I'd better move to a more urban area to take part.
http://www.npr.org/2013/09/12/221425582 ... -get-worse
From that link:
"I think what will happen is, because we measure better and more over time, people who are truly talented will become millionaires much more easily. So I think we'll move from a country where instead of talking about the one percent, it will be the 15 percent, for instance."


This is already true to a large extend around DC. So much money flows from the federal government / DOD that there is a distinct upper middle class (households w/ net worth of $500k-$1m) west of the Capitol extending out to about Dulles airport and north about 5 miles above the beltway that is completely isolated from everything going in the country and the rest of their states, much like the 1%ers we heard so much about during the "Occupy" movement. I would call them the start the "15%" that Tyler speaks of here as they are your doctors, lawyers, and engineers.

One thing I didn't see mentioned, and it's probably in the book, is the power of inheritance. As the baby boomers die off, we are going to see a massive shift in wealth as their life insurance and property flows down to their Gen-X kids.
baby boomer didn't have gen-x kids. they had gen y kids.
the 20-somethings stand a much better chance of getting rich than those of us born in the mid-60s to mid-70s due to the large number of gen-y kids populating the country (because their parents were largely baby boomers)- also, from some of the articles I've read, many baby boomers are not terribly interested in giving their children an inheritance - they have been trending towards using the money they've made to have a golden set of retirement years.
Dev wrote:you're delusional. you are a sad sad person. fuck off. you're mentally ill beyond repair. i don't need your shit. dissapear.
Spoiler: show
people change. people stay the same. people are so often disappointing - random PM, person unnamed
User avatar
Green Habit
Site Admin
Posts: 6946
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm

Re: Does anyone care about the economy?

Post by Green Habit »

malice wrote:baby boomer didn't have gen-x kids. they had gen y kids.
They gave birth to both--mostly the people on the Xer/Millennial cusp--like me. Once I finally understood this, it really cleared things up for me since I never felt wholly comfortable with either generation.

I do agree with you that Gen X is most likely the most screwed generation out of the main three living right now.
User avatar
malice
post-structuralist
Posts: 4377
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:22 pm
Location: faked by jorge

Re: Does anyone care about the economy?

Post by malice »

Green Habit wrote:
malice wrote:baby boomer didn't have gen-x kids. they had gen y kids.
They gave birth to both--mostly the people on the Xer/Millennial cusp--like me. Once I finally understood this, it really cleared things up for me since I never felt wholly comfortable with either generation.

I do agree with you that Gen X is most likely the most screwed generation out of the main three living right now.
I'm sure you're right about that - I was mainly trying to clarify that gen-x has typically been defined as generation 'X' because we were directly after the boomers, and there aren't a lot of us, so we have very little 'voice' in the world - lower numbers make us less attractive as a generation because we can't exert the kind of influence over the direction of the world as either the boomers or the millennials. (gen-x is a lost or unknown generation.)
gen-y/millennials are named as such because they they came after us slackers, and have a ton of advantages due to being the off-spring of the boomers.

and if it makes you feel any better about your own situation in the generational spread - I'm in something of a unique position as well - not due to when I was born, but due to being born from parents who raised all boomers, until me. so I have a lot of affinity with the boomers' slant on life, but largely rejected it as I got into my 20s - i see how the boomers have developed as a generation and how the gen-xers have fared as well and there's some benefits to both, it's a tight-rope walk way to view yourself...
Dev wrote:you're delusional. you are a sad sad person. fuck off. you're mentally ill beyond repair. i don't need your shit. dissapear.
Spoiler: show
people change. people stay the same. people are so often disappointing - random PM, person unnamed
User avatar
@SkitchP
RM Elitist
Posts: 9995
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Does anyone care about the economy?

Post by @SkitchP »

The Detroit Free Press did a great story about how detroit got into it's current financial situation


http://www.freep.com/article/20130915/N ... on-revenue
dimejinky99 wrote: Hang on I check on my Grindr
User avatar
Green Habit
Site Admin
Posts: 6946
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm

Re: Does anyone care about the economy?

Post by Green Habit »

There is going to be some real Schadenfreude enjoyed by some if Yellen gets the Fed job after Summers withdrew from the competition.
shinkdew
Broken Tamborine
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu January 03, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Does anyone care about the economy?

Post by shinkdew »

Green Habit wrote:There is going to be some real Schadenfreude enjoyed by some if Yellen gets the Fed job after Summers withdrew from the competition.
I hope he chooses Kohn just to spite his own party.
User avatar
malice
post-structuralist
Posts: 4377
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:22 pm
Location: faked by jorge

Re: Does anyone care about the economy?

Post by malice »

The economist who predicted the financial crisis just sounded another alarm—it would be wise to listen this time

http://qz.com/126875/the-economist-who- ... is-time/#!

In his first official act as the new governor of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), Raghuram Rajan raised the benchmark interest rate from 7.25 to 7.5%, causing a ripple of surprise in financial circles and eliciting protests from various business representatives. But for people who know the current condition of emerging markets and Rajan’s professional trajectory, this was not surprising, at all.

Rajan has no qualms about staging such challenges. In 2005, Rajan was chief economist of the International Monetary Fund and attended the top central bankers’ get together in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, to present a paper on how the financial sector had evolved during Alan Greenspan’s era. As Rajan later described the meeting, which was to be Greenspan’s last, in his book Fault Lines: “Some of the papers in the conference, in keeping with the Greenspan-era theme, focused on whether Alan Greenspan was the best central banker in history, or just among the best.”

Not Rajan. He argued that under Greenspan, incentives had been artificially skewed in favor of the managers of the financial system, which reaped millenary rewards if things went fine but paid very little, if at all, when things turned sour. And he added that things were likely to turn sour because the skewed incentives were offering incentive to those managers to take excessive risks. He then focused on the “credit default swaps” which promised to repay delinquent loans in exchange for moderate insurance premiums. Noting that nobody really knew how realistically these swaps were priced, Rajan said that the banks were probably taking excessive risks because they trusted that the insurer would repay them. In these circumstances, a sudden increase in defaulting loans could exceed the reserves of the insurer, leading to a financial crisis. This is exactly what happened two years later, leading to the 2008 financial crisis.
His warning was not well received. Many people thought that Rajan didn’t understand modern finance. As it turned out, he understood it all too well—and it was those who looked down on him who did not.

Now Rajan has issued another warning by increasing the benchmark rate in India, shortly after the US Federal Reserve decided to keep on buying $85 billion of securities per month under its quantitative easing 3 program, to the general happiness of financial sector managers and traders. The Fed’s announcement spurred an immediate mini-boom in all financial instruments. The day after the announcement, I published an article in Quartz in which I argued that the current high rate of monetary creation and the extremely low interest rates caused by QE3 are unsustainable and that, sooner than later, interest rates are bound to increase. I argued further that the long prevalence of extremely low interest rates is likely to be creating the conditions for a serious financial crisis; all the economic activities that are profitable due to low rates will become unprofitable and will not be able to repay their obligations.

For this reason, it is necessary to prepare for such eventuality. This is what Rajan is doing by increasing interest rates in India, by easing the appetite for unsustainable activities that can survive only with low rates. The Financial Times quotes his rationale: “Let us remember that postponement of tapering is only that—a postponement…Let’s not lose the chance, the warning that we have been given, because this is going to come back and what we need to do is put our house in order before.”

This is a warning that the entire global economy should take seriously. Not just other emerging markets.
What can be done in this situation? In emerging markets, central banks should start increasing interest rates now that it can be done very gradually. Higher interest rates would deter investment in unsustainable activities and attract funds to more solid ventures. Moreover, they would help in stopping capital outflows that are seeking higher rates in the United States, and alleviating the trend toward currency devaluations, which are only accelerating those outflows. The postponement of the interest rates increases in the United States will allow these countries to go through the adjustment process in a gradual way. In a crisis, interest rates are raised in leaps, which causes considerable more damage to the economy.

Individual investors should see ahead of the curve, noticing that a world of higher interest rates looms. People now holding the kind of assets that would experience a sharp fall if interest rates go up should get out of them, particularly if these investments are burdened with fixed obligations that will not be reduced as interest rates go up. Of course, this is the kind of advice that cannot be useful for everybody at the same time. Aggregate losses cannot be avoided. Someone will have to absorb them because, as interest rates go up, the prices of the assets will go down. If you sell your assets before prices fall, for example, it is the buyer who will have to take the loss. This is the price that society has to pay for having unsustainably low interest rates for a long time.
Rajan’s warning is just one of the many that point to higher interest rates in the near future.
Dev wrote:you're delusional. you are a sad sad person. fuck off. you're mentally ill beyond repair. i don't need your shit. dissapear.
Spoiler: show
people change. people stay the same. people are so often disappointing - random PM, person unnamed
User avatar
Human Bass
A Return To Form
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 6:49 pm

Re: Does anyone care about the economy?

Post by Human Bass »

I just watched this video about new york hipsters going nuts and waiting two hours in a line fomr "cronuts", that is a sign of a decaying nation.



http://veja.abril.com.br/multimidia/vid ... va-york-ny
doug rr
The Master
Posts: 27320
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:45 pm
Location: I'm now Canadian..go broncos

Re: Does anyone care about the economy?

Post by doug rr »

all that video did for me was make me miss my weekly trips to Espisito's Pork Store and Russ & Daughters
User avatar
---
Future Drummer
Posts: 2439
Joined: Tue February 12, 2013 5:03 pm

Re: Does anyone care about the economy?

Post by --- »

those look great, would probably stand in line ~30 minutes for one
User avatar
---
Future Drummer
Posts: 2439
Joined: Tue February 12, 2013 5:03 pm

Re: Does anyone care about the economy?

Post by --- »

http://chrisauld.com/2013/10/23/18-sign ... economics/
18 signs you’re reading bad criticism of economics

Every mainstream science which touches on political or religious ideology attracts more than its fair share of deniers: the anti-vaccine crowd v mainstream medicine, GMO fearmongers v geneticists, creationists v biologists, global warming deniers v climatologists. Economics is no different, but economics cranks differ in that they typically make false claims about the content of economics itself, as opposed, or as a prelude, to false claims about the way the world works. That target sometimes making it hard for non-economists to differentiate crankery from solid criticism.

Here, then, are some symptoms of bad critiques of economics:

1.) Treats macroeconomic forecasting as the major or only goal of economic analysis.
2.) Frames critique in terms of politics, most commonly the claim that economists are market fundamentalists.
3.) Uses “neoclassical” as if it refers to a political philosophy, set of policy prescriptions, or actual economies. Bonus: spells it “neo-classical” or “Neo-classical.”
4.) Refers to “the” neoclassical model or otherwise suggests all of economic thought is contained in Walras (1874).
5.) Uses “neoclassical economics” and “mainstream economics” interchangeably. Bonus: uses “neoliberal economics” interchangeably with either.
6.) Uses the word “neoliberal” for any reason.
7.) Refers to “corporate masters” or otherwise implies economists are shills for the wealthy or corporations.
8.) Claims economists think people are always rational.
9.) Claims financial crisis disproved mainstream economics.
10.) Explicitly claims that economics is not empirical, or does so implicitly by ignoring empirical economics.
11.) Treats all of economics as if it’s battling schools of macroeconomics.
12.) Misconstrues jargon: “rational.”
13.) Misconstrues jargon: “efficient” (financial sense) or “efficient” (Pareto sense).
14.) Misconstrues jargon: “externality."
15.) Claims economists only care about money.
16.) Claims economists ignore the environment. Variant: claims economics falters on point that “infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible.”
17.) Goes out of its way to point out that the Economics Nobel is not a real Nobel.
18.) Cites Debunking Economics.
User avatar
stip
The worst
Posts: 42946
Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm

Re: Does anyone care about the economy?

Post by stip »

What a precious little list. :heartbeat:

I did not realize that the economics Nobel was not a real Nobel. I'll have to add that to the rotation.
User avatar
Fuck You Jobu
AnalLog
Posts: 1531
Joined: Wed January 16, 2013 10:46 pm
Location: Wrigleyville

Re: Does anyone care about the economy?

Post by Fuck You Jobu »

I wouldn't call the Peace Prize much of a Nobel either.
doug rr
The Master
Posts: 27320
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:45 pm
Location: I'm now Canadian..go broncos

Re: Does anyone care about the economy?

Post by doug rr »

predictions on Twitter IPO?
User avatar
stip
The worst
Posts: 42946
Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm

Re: Does anyone care about the economy?

Post by stip »

--- wrote:http://chrisauld.com/2013/10/23/18-signs-youre-reading-bad-criticism-of-economics/
18 signs you’re reading bad criticism of economics

Every mainstream science which touches on political or religious ideology attracts more than its fair share of deniers: the anti-vaccine crowd v mainstream medicine, GMO fearmongers v geneticists, creationists v biologists, global warming deniers v climatologists. Economics is no different, but economics cranks differ in that they typically make false claims about the content of economics itself, as opposed, or as a prelude, to false claims about the way the world works. That target sometimes making it hard for non-economists to differentiate crankery from solid criticism.

Here, then, are some symptoms of bad critiques of economics:

1.) Treats macroeconomic forecasting as the major or only goal of economic analysis.
2.) Frames critique in terms of politics, most commonly the claim that economists are market fundamentalists.
3.) Uses “neoclassical” as if it refers to a political philosophy, set of policy prescriptions, or actual economies. Bonus: spells it “neo-classical” or “Neo-classical.”
4.) Refers to “the” neoclassical model or otherwise suggests all of economic thought is contained in Walras (1874).
5.) Uses “neoclassical economics” and “mainstream economics” interchangeably. Bonus: uses “neoliberal economics” interchangeably with either.
6.) Uses the word “neoliberal” for any reason.
7.) Refers to “corporate masters” or otherwise implies economists are shills for the wealthy or corporations.
8.) Claims economists think people are always rational.
9.) Claims financial crisis disproved mainstream economics.
10.) Explicitly claims that economics is not empirical, or does so implicitly by ignoring empirical economics.
11.) Treats all of economics as if it’s battling schools of macroeconomics.
12.) Misconstrues jargon: “rational.”
13.) Misconstrues jargon: “efficient” (financial sense) or “efficient” (Pareto sense).
14.) Misconstrues jargon: “externality."
15.) Claims economists only care about money.
16.) Claims economists ignore the environment. Variant: claims economics falters on point that “infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible.”
17.) Goes out of its way to point out that the Economics Nobel is not a real Nobel.
18.) Cites Debunking Economics.
It would be helpful if you explained the 'proper' use of those terms
shinkdew
Broken Tamborine
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu January 03, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Does anyone care about the economy?

Post by shinkdew »

doug rr wrote:predictions on Twitter IPO?
I think it'll double to $40ish on day 1. I have a feeling it's going to go the route of Groupon though and be like 80% lower 6-12 months later. I think this IPO signals the top of the social media stocks. Unless pinterest happens to find a way to go public with zero revenue.
User avatar
malice
post-structuralist
Posts: 4377
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:22 pm
Location: faked by jorge

Re: Does anyone care about the economy?

Post by malice »

will someone please explain to this stupid woman how Amazon isn't making profits, and is called the darling of Wall Street - I'd very much like to understand this and how it affects our economy. my assumption is it does have an effect, likely a negative one, but what makes them the giant they obviously are yet they still sustain losses while their stock rises? who benefits from this? investors only? the public? the company? anyone?

I notice they just raised their free shipping limit to $35 as well - noted in the article - so is this always the way companies account for what I gather is rapid growth pushes (intentional rapid growth pushes by the company) - pass the cost of their growth to the consumer?
I don't mean to be naive but aren't there better and more cost efficient ways to grow a business that allows for a level annual income once in awhile?

maybe none of these questions are worth the answering of them, but I can't help but to shake my head in disbelief when reading articles like. I'm seeking some clarification...


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/25/techn ... .html?_r=0#!
Amazon’s Revenue Soars, but No Profit Is in Sight

SAN FRANCISCO — Amazon’s third quarter followed a familiar script: it sold vast quantities of things, lost money while doing so, and investors were delighted.

Amazon's market activity over the last three months.
Related

Sales Are Colossal, Shares Are Soaring. All Amazon Is Missing Is a Profit (October 22, 2013)
Amazon Raises Threshold for Free Shipping (October 22, 2013)

Revenue was $17.09 billion, the company said on Thursday, up 24 percent and about $400 million more than analysts predicted. But all that volume could not yield a profit. Amazon lost 9 cents a share, or $41 million, just as it had anticipated.

Investors broke out the Champagne. In after-hours trading, the stock was up $29, or 8 percent, to $361. The stock is up nearly tenfold since 2008.

Amazon is the subject of an increasingly bitter debate about whether all of its investing in warehouses and new ventures will ever lead to solid profits. The bulls think the company is building an unassailable position as the most important retailer in the country. The bears point to things like this week’s increase in the free shipping minimum to $35 from $25 as signs that Amazon must one day focus on the bottom line.

For the moment, the bulls are very much in ascendance.

Amazon had predicted that revenue in the third quarter would rise 12 to 24 percent. The results came in at the very top of that range. As for the loss, it was smaller than the 60 cents a share, or $274 million, the company lost last year. Much of the poor 2012 showing was related to an ill-fated investment in LivingSocial, a daily deals site.

In a conference call with analysts, Tom Szkutak, Amazon’s chief financial officer, focused on what he called “a nice steady acceleration of growth” in North America since last year’s fourth quarter.

But Mr. Szkutak was chary with specifics. Asked about a reference in the results to signing up “millions” of new customers for the $79 Prime shipping service, he merely said, “Prime is growing very fast.”

The results will nevertheless raise expectations for the fourth quarter. Amazon said sales might rise as little as 10 percent or as much as 25 percent compared with the fourth quarter of 2012. And it warned it might once again lose money.

“Amazon is the teacher’s pet of Wall Street,” said Sucharita Mulpuru, an analyst with Forrester Research. “There is no other company in the entire world that has the consistently abominable rate of profitability they do and yet has the stratospheric valuation they do.”

Amazon has about 100 fulfillment centers — what in the old economy were called warehouses. It has streamlined the process of opening these centers, but it is still a huge expense.

In the last 90 days, the company said, it began using eight million square feet of new warehouses.

There is more to come. Amazon said this week that it would open new fulfillment centers in Hillsborough County and Lakeland, Fla., and in Baltimore.
Last edited by malice on Fri October 25, 2013 4:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dev wrote:you're delusional. you are a sad sad person. fuck off. you're mentally ill beyond repair. i don't need your shit. dissapear.
Spoiler: show
people change. people stay the same. people are so often disappointing - random PM, person unnamed
User avatar
stip
The worst
Posts: 42946
Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm

Re: Does anyone care about the economy?

Post by stip »

Because business reporting is fucking moronic and wall street is full of imbeciles who pay economists to tell them that they are brilliant.

Plus everyone thinks, for some reason, that stock prices are a useful way to tell if a company is doing something useful for the larger economy people live in.

There are probably more technical reasons as well.
User avatar
Human Bass
A Return To Form
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 6:49 pm

Re: Does anyone care about the economy?

Post by Human Bass »

I think it is two things:

1 - the hope for profits

2 - the constant injection of money in the financial system by the FED that causes a lot of distortions and "irrational exuberance"
Post Reply